6 ms·

It's flagged because it's a misleading attempt to relitigate only one of many causes of the war in Iraq. Among other causes were Saddam's attempts at genocide

It's flagged because it's a misleading attempt to relitigate only one of many causes of the war in Iraq. Among other causes were Saddam's attempts at genocide against the Kurds,[0] his attacks on US and British forces patrolling the no fly zone,[1] his defiance of UN regulations,[2] his redirection and delay of distributing aid to hurt his own people while blaming the international community,[3] his army of fascist goons running the country--to include his serial rapist sons,[4] the training and financing of international terrorist groups,[5] and his attacks on and threats to destroy Israel.[6] The ideal of providing a democratic model for other authoritarian regimes, proximity to Iran, a need for strategic air bases to support anticipated regional conflicts, and oil politics all may have played some role as well. Moreover, information declassified in 2015 showed that Iraq had stockpiles of missiles armed with sarin, and internal plans to halt production during sanctions while retaining the capital and facilities to resume production as soon as sanctions were lifted. The US had a policy of regime change in Iraq as early as 1998, and the conflict should really be seen as one from 1991-2003. In the 2000 Presidential debates, even Al Gore said Saddam should have been removed earlier, and that he wanted to arm rebels to topple Saddam.[7] It was flagged because Saddam promising an interrogator he wouldn't use chemical weapons to start WWIII doesn't change any of that, and is barely relevant to anything. Granted, it's an extremely unpopular war. It's extremely unpopular because it was one of the most poorly prosecuted wars in history, partly due to de-bathification deteriorating civil government and partly due to it becoming a magnet for rising violent jihadism. It's not an unpopular war because Saddam was some noble innocent, some scapegoat who wandered into the crosshairs of geopolitical forces outside of his control. [0] https://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm https://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm [1] http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-conflict.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-conf... [2] https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/dec... [3] http://www.usip.org/events/iraq-sanctions-what-have-we-learned http://www.usip.org/events/iraq-sanctions-what-have-we-learn... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannegoldenberg https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannego... [5] http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513 http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513 [6] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/956084.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/956084.stm [7] http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-11-2000-debate-transcript http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-11-2000-debate...

464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
This is all historical revisionism. You need to look at the reasons that were given at the time, not the reasons people made up to justify and obfuscate what they did decades later.
- brownbat 10y ago
  Most of those sources predate the war, and one is even to GWB's page explaining his reason for the war at the time, ie, your very threshold. You could be forgiven for thinking this was just historical revisionism if you only looked at superficial news weeklies and ignored all foreign policy forums from the late 90s and early 2000s. EDIT: Oh, I forgot Saddam's attempted assassination of a sitting US President, which Bush cited in a campaign speech as a reason he needed to be toppled: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1000 http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1000 Most of these complaints with Saddam were aired at the time, in various forums. Some may have gotten more airtime, because they were more directly involved with UN processes or more sensationalist for journalists, but that doesn't mean the others weren't causes of the war. If you wanted one sole cause of the war it would have been ten years of defying sanctions and bellicose rhetoric after the 1991 Gulf War. Any read of primary sources from the late 90s about US-Iraqi relations makes that much more clear.
lisper 10y ago
> It's flagged because it's a misleading attempt to relitigate only one of many causes of the war in Iraq. It's a firsthand account from someone who was there at the time published in a reputable news outlet. > It was flagged because Saddam promising an interrogator he wouldn't use chemical weapons to start WWIII ... is barely relevant to anything. WMDs were the centerpiece of the case against Saddam. All the other arguments were just gilding the lily. The war was sold primarily (in fact, almost exclusively) on the grounds that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the U.S. because he had WMDs, and the fact of the matter was that he did not. (Not only did he not have them, but it was clear at the time that he did not have them: there were U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war, and they, obviously, had found nothing.) A first hand account from someone who was there are the time is relevant if nothing else because it provides a fuller understanding of history that could inform future decisions and allow us to avoid repeating this catastrophic mistake. > oil politics ... may have played some role as well Ya think?

464192002d7fe1c 10y ago

This is all historical revisionism. You need to look at the reasons that were given at the time, not the reasons people made up to justify and obfuscate what they did decades later.

brownbat 10y ago
Most of those sources predate the war, and one is even to GWB's page explaining his reason for the war at the time, ie, your very threshold. You could be forgiven for thinking this was just historical revisionism if you only looked at superficial news weeklies and ignored all foreign policy forums from the late 90s and early 2000s. EDIT: Oh, I forgot Saddam's attempted assassination of a sitting US President, which Bush cited in a campaign speech as a reason he needed to be toppled: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1000 http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1000 Most of these complaints with Saddam were aired at the time, in various forums. Some may have gotten more airtime, because they were more directly involved with UN processes or more sensationalist for journalists, but that doesn't mean the others weren't causes of the war. If you wanted one sole cause of the war it would have been ten years of defying sanctions and bellicose rhetoric after the 1991 Gulf War. Any read of primary sources from the late 90s about US-Iraqi relations makes that much more clear.

lisper 10y ago

> It's flagged because it's a misleading attempt to relitigate only one of many causes of the war in Iraq. It's a firsthand account from someone who was there at the time published in a reputable news outlet. > It was flagged because Saddam promising an interrogator he wouldn't use chemical weapons to start WWIII ... is barely relevant to anything. WMDs were the centerpiece of the case against Saddam. All the other arguments were just gilding the lily. The war was sold primarily (in fact, almost exclusively) on the grounds that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the U.S. because he had WMDs, and the fact of the matter was that he did not. (Not only did he not have them, but it was clear at the time that he did not have them: there were U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war, and they, obviously, had found nothing.) A first hand account from someone who was there are the time is relevant if nothing else because it provides a fuller understanding of history that could inform future decisions and allow us to avoid repeating this catastrophic mistake. > oil politics ... may have played some role as well Ya think?